1. The Defendant’s KRW 29,521,200 as well as 5% per annum from September 12, 2018 to April 3, 2019 to the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of background;

A. The Plaintiff filed an application with the Seoul Southern District Court for a payment order against C (hereinafter “C”) claiming payment of the purchase price of goods under the Seoul Southern District Court 2018 tea120.

On April 24, 2018, "C" states that "193,906,970 won and damages for delay shall be paid to the Plaintiff," and "the payment order of this case" is "the payment order of this case.

The payment order was issued, and it became final and conclusive around that time.

B. The defendant is "the construction work of this case" as "the construction work for the production and installation of goods in the hotel rooms" to C.

From December 5, 2017 to March 23, 2018, the term of the contract was set at KRW 317,900,000. C subcontracted the production and supply of the mobile household during the instant construction to E (mutualF), its own production and supply to G (mutual H), its own production and supply to G (mutualJ), its own production and supply to G (mutualJ).

C. As to the amount up to KRW 196,187,240 among the claims related to the construction of this case held against the Defendant by Seoul Southern District Court 2018TTT 106267, the Plaintiff based on the original copy of the instant payment order, “the collection order of this case” refers to the collection order of this case.

The original copy of the instant collection order was served on June 20, 2018 to the Defendant. [The entries in the evidence No. 1, No. 2, 3, and No. 1, No. 3, and the purport of the entire pleadings and arguments based on recognition]

2. The plaintiff asserted that the amount up to KRW 196,187,240, out of the claim for construction price against the defendant C, was collected by the collection order of this case, and the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the collection amount of KRW 196,187,240 and delay damages.

3. Determination

A. If the relevant legal principles competes with seizure, the creditor collecting the claim with the collection order is a kind of collection agency according to the execution court's authorization, and is engaged in collection from the third debtor for all creditors taking part in the seizure or distribution. Therefore, the third debtor is also a legitimate collection authority.